by Rodney Stich
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
The author spent much of his adult life in aviation as a pilot, commencing as a U.S. Navy pilot and flight instructor in World War Two, followed
by years of flying as an airline captain in domestic and overseas operations.
He was one of the first pilots licensed by Japan, holding pilot license
number J. 70. During his international flying activities he had many
interesting and exciting experiences, including being caught in Iran during
a revolution in 1953 as he was flying Muslim pilgrims to Mecca. He
experienced all types of aircraft emergencies, including engine fires, engine
failures, and serious fuel shortages brought about by adverse winds. These
flying experiences brought him into contact with many pilots flying for the
CIA, making him privy to clandestine CIA activities as early as 1951.
In the early 1960s he left airline flying and became a federal air safety
investigator for the Federal Aviation Administration, being responsible for
air safety at several major airlines during the time that a major air disaster
occurred in his area of responsibilities on an average of every six months.
The combination of repeated horror in these airline crashes combined
with deep-seated fraud in the FAA, NTSB, and at United Airlines, caused
the author to become a crusader against corrupt government.
Thirty years of aggressively seeking to expose government duplicity
brought him into contact with whistleblowers from the FBI, CIA, DIA,
DEA, and other covert agencies.
During the past thirty years he witnessed the explosion of government
corruption to a degree that is almost beyond comprehension. His aggressive
and imaginative use of legal and other remedies revealed other areas of
government corruption, taking him far beyond what he initially discovered
as a federal investigator.
In seeking to make the public aware of this corruption and how it is has
inflicted brutal harm upon them, he has suffered many years of physical,
personal, and financial retaliation. These actions converted him from a
multi-millionaire to a state where everything he owned was taken, his civil
and constitutional rights nullified, and even imprisoned in retaliation for
seeking to expose the criminal and subversive activities involving powerful
government officials.
The author is a member of the Association of Former Intelligence
Agents, International Society of Air Safety Investigators, Lawyer-Pilots Bar
Association, among other professional groups. He has appeared as guest and
expert on over 2500 radio and television shows in the United States,
Canada, Mexico, Germany, and Holland since 1978.
He has written several widely acclaimed books on aviation and
government corruption, including three editions of Unfriendly Skies and this
third edition of Defrauding America. Others are being written.
The intent of this book is to inform the reader about the bizarre web of
intrigue in the three branches of the federal government that I and my large
number of sources discovered during the last 30 years. I initially started
discovering the misconduct and its brutal consequences after I became a
federal inspector and investigator for the Federal Aviation Administration,
while I was responsible for air safety at several major airlines.
My attempts to expose and halt the misconduct eventually brought me
into contact with people involved in covert activities, causing me to discover
corruption far beyond the aviation area. If someone had told me years
earlier about these illegal operations I would have thought that person to be
paranoid. The world of covert activities is often beyond the comprehension
of the average person who has been shielded from the realities of what
actually occurs behind the scenes in these United States.
This book reveals criminal and subversive activities implicating high level personnel in the three branches of the federal government. It reveals
why most of the public is dangerously uninformed about the criminal acts
perpetrated against the United States and its people by the very people
entrusted to prevent such happenings.
Many criminal activities, such as CIA drugging of America, will be
difficult to believe by most Americans who have been shielded from the
truth by a duplicitous Congress and much of the media. For those of us who
have seen these events as insiders, including those who actually participated
in them, questioning whether the CIA would engage in drug trafficking is
like asking pilots, "Will planes really fly? " Yes, planes actually fly, and
yes, the CIA has been smuggling drugs into the United States for the past
50 years. But the crimes related to drug trafficking are only a small part of
the overall corruption described within these pages.
For those people who can't believe that these crimes are being inflicted
upon the American people by their own government officials, or who feel
guilty about not exercising some form of outrage, I suggest that they
consider this book a novel .
Although this book is heavily detailed and documented, it is possible
that some relatively minor error may occasionally exist, or one of my
otherwise reliable informants may have exaggerated some particular matter.
However, my extensive cross-checking with other sources reduces this
possibility. Any such isolated errors do not cancel the massive amount of
various forms of evidence that is prima facie evidence of the criminal
activities.
The primary motive that I have had in writing this and other books has
been to inform and motivate that small percentage of Americans capable of
responding to these serious threats to the nation and its people.
DEDICATION
This book is dedicated to the memory of those who have suffered so
grievously at the hands of corrupt government in the United States. They
include:
* Those who perished in fraud-related airline crashes, which the author
details and documents in his classic book, Unfriendly Skies.
* Those who were fraudulently imprisoned to silence or discredit their
disclosure of high-level government corruption.
* Those who were stripped of their life's assets as they were targeted
through the misuse of government offices and power, especially through the
federal bankruptcy courts.
* Those who died in wars generated by the CIA and other government
entities on sham pretenses, such as Korea and Vietnam.
* Those who died in government raids such as at Waco, Ruby Ridge,
and the many other incidents that the national media chose to ignore.
* Those who have yet to suffer from financial, personal, and physical
harm, even death, as a result of the corruption described within these pages.
* Those people in other countries who were the victims of U.S.
invasions and undermining of their governments, economic sanctions, the
training, arming and funding of guerilla forces that inflicted torture and
death upon them.
* To those brave people who sought to expose different aspects of this
corruption and who paid and are paying the consequences for their " foolish"
acts. It is unfortunate that the government and most of the non-government
checks and balances have become involved through complicity of coverup
and disinformation, and that most of the public lacks the courage and
integrity to meet their responsibilities in defending against these national
outrages.
It is hoped that this book will motivate others to learn about what is
being done to America and its people by those in control of the invisible or
secret government.
CHAPTER 1
AIR DISASTERS AND
GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION
These pages detail and document corruption that I, as a former government
investigator and then private investigator, and a large number of former
CIA and other deep-cover operatives, have experienced or discovered
during the past 30 years. This corruption, adversely affecting the national security
and the lives of many Americans has been kept from the American people by
virtually every government and non-government check and balance. The intent
of this and other books that I have written has been to inform the public of the
misconduct and harm inflicted upon Americans by people in control of their
government and to motivate them into meaningful action and exercise of their
responsibilities.
I first discovered criminal misconduct associated with a series of brutal airline
disasters that were occurring on programs for which I held federal air safety
responsibilities as a federal air safety inspector-investigator for the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA). A major air disaster was occurring on programs
for which I had safety responsibilities on an average of every six months, and
continued for many years. To this date, not a single one of the guilty parties
ever suffered for their crimes, and actually profited.
Because of these tragedies and the arrogance of those who held a key role
in making them possible, I started exercising government and non-government
remedies. The more that I tried, the greater was the amount of corruption that
I encountered. It turned into a David versus Goliath battle against powerful
elements in government.
Without that government experience as an insider, I would probably be as
uninformed and indifferent to the corruption and the harm as most Americans
are today.
EXTENSIVE AVIATION BACKGROUND
My ability to recognize the relationship between airline crashes and the behind the-scene problems that caused or made them possible arose from a combination
of unusual aviation experiences. The basic aviation knowledge arose from my
many years in military and commercial aviation. I joined the navy at the young
age of 17 and after training, and before the Japanese attack upon Pearl Harbor, I became a radioman on a PBY Catalina seaplane. In 1943 I received my wings
as a naval aviator and then became a PBY flight instructor, followed by command
pilot on four-engine Navy Liberators and Privateers throughout the Pacific.
After World War II I became an airline pilot and captain flying in virtually
every type of plane flown by U.S. airlines, including the double-deck Boeing
Stratocruiser and Lockheed Super Constellation. My flying included passenger
operations throughout most of the world. While flying captain for Japan Airlines
I had Japanese co pilots, a few of whom ironically were in the same small group
of pilots flying out of Wake Island during the war who used to shoot at me when
I was flying patrol flights out of Midway Island. In these types of flight operations
there were many interesting experiences, including for instance the time that
I found myself in the middle of an Iranian revolution in 1953. I had my share
of engine failures, engine fires, sudden closing of virtually all airports at my
destination, serious icing problems on the North Atlantic, sudden shortage of
fuel when the head winds over long over-water flights became more adverse
than forecast.
DISCOVERING THE
POLITICS OF AIR SAFETY
Where I really learned about highly technical air safety matters and the politics
of air safety was after I became an air carrier operations inspector for the Federal
Aviation Administration. My first assignment was to the FAA Los Angeles District
Office. I joined the FAA shortly after the FAA was legislated into being following
a spectacular midair collision over the Grand Canyon when a United Airlines
DC-7 crashed into a TWA Constellation, causing the deaths of everyone on board.
At this time I have many FAA-issued licenses, and had extensive aviation
experience.
Among my many safety related responsibilities were conducting flight checks
of airline pilots and issuing ratings enabling them to fly that particular aircraft
in airline operations. There were problems in the Los Angeles office due to the
internal culture within the FAA that continues to this day, but there were more
serious problems at another location with one politically-connected airline
experiencing more airline crashes than all the other airlines combined.
After an initial assignment to the Los Angeles district office I was asked to
volunteer for a crash-plagued program that experienced more air disasters than
all the other airlines combined. The corruption that I discovered from that
assignment, and concern about the many people who were killed as a result of
the deliberate misconduct, started me on years of attempting to expose and bring
to justice extremely serious corruption involving federal officials. I constantly
discovered other areas of corruption that if someone had told me earlier about
it I would have thought them to be paranoid.
The problems that I discovered had already been discovered by other FAA
inspectors. Some had transferred to other assignments when their lawful duties
were blocked and they were subject to threats by air I ine and FAA management.
My predecessor, who was persistent in seeking to correct the serious safety
problems, was ordered transferred to a meaningless assignment in Puerto Rico.
People who also suffered from the politics of air safety were the flight crew
members, some of whom were denied the legally required and industry accepted
training, and subjected to aircraft that had inadequate safeguards. By denying training to pilots and lowering competency requirements, that particular department
saved considerable money. The people responsible for this situation received
the benefits that went along with that conduct.
There were other aspects to this misconduct. Government required records
were falsified to fraudulently indicate that training was given when the training
and competency checks were not accomplished. These were criminal acts, and
in light of the repeated crashes associated with the air safety fraud the implications
were extremely serious. Almost every crash experienced by that airline was due
to pilot competency problems that originated from the violation of training
regulations.
Compounding these problems, FAA management in the local district office,
in the Los Angeles regional office, and in Washington, knew of the violations
and their relationship to the continuing crashes that covered a period from 1960
to 1978. I experienced, as did other inspectors, harassment, intimidation, threats,
and adverse personnel actions. It was a nasty situation.
FAA management repeatedly removed and destroyed inspector reports of
these safety and criminal violations. Whenever I discovered this occurrence I
filed copies of the originals, which simply enraged management.
When weak captains were scheduled for flight checks to be performed by
FAA-approved company check airmen, and I made it known that I would be
observing the check, as FAA inspectors were required to do, I would be ordered
by FAA management not to show up.
I arrived on this tragedy-plagued program shortly after it experienced the
world's worst air disaster in which a DC-8 crashed into the heart of New York
City. That senseless tragedy was followed within a few months by another
senseless crash at Denver.
At that time, FAA inspectors like myself were outraged at the massive safety
problems at the airline and FAA actions blocking federal inspectors from
performing their duties. One outspoken and concerned inspector, Frank Harrell,
took the extraordinary step of circumventing the Denver district office and Los
Angeles regional office and went to Washington, complaining to both high-level
FAA and National Transportation Safety Board personnel. (The NTSB at that
time was known as the Civil Aeronautics Board Bureau of Air Safety.)
Typical of the culture in the FAA, nothing was done in response to these
reports. Years later, after many other crashes occurred in that same program
due to the same combination of corrupt acts, I also went to the same high-level
officials, unknown that my complaints were preceded by other inspectors.
Since we inspectors had the technical ability and authority under federal law
to establish the existence of these safety problems and safety violations on the
part of the government, the actions taken against us, including the threats and
adverse job actions, were extremely serious. Especially so in light of the many
people who died in related air disasters.
In response to these serious problems, some inspectors transferred to other
assignments where the airlines were more cooperative and in compliance with
the law. A very few, like myself, sought to do something about the problems
and fought the system, paying a heavy price for trying to comply with our federal
responsibilities.
The really "smart" inspectors, and there were plenty of those, simply looked
the other way, did not report the problems, and even covered up for them. They
gained promotions and higher pay, including outstanding performance awards
with their financial bonuses. Of course, people paid the consequences, as many
were cremated alive, dismembered alive, and experiencing the horror that
accompanies air disasters.
Among the problems that I encountered and reported included:
*Violation of federal air safety training requirements, denying to flight-deck
crew members the legally required training and competency checks, and then
falsifying records to indicate that these requirements were accomplished.
*FAA-approved company check airmen with an anything-goes safety standard,
allowing the airline to eliminate the need for corrective training of pilots and
flight engineers who needed additional training. When FAA inspectors, who
monitored such checks, reported the problems as they were required to do, FAA
and airline management threatened and harassed them.
*Removing FAA inspectors from company-conducted flight checks of known
weak pilots.
*Refusing to take corrective action when inspectors reported that the airline
was falsifying records, was not conducting important safety training and
competency checks of flight crewmembers.
*Refusing to take action on the flight engineer training program and chaotic
competency standards of many of the flight engineers.
* Refusing to take action on my reports that the important emergency
evacuation training, which was required by law to be accomplished every 12
months, was being accomplished only every three years, and the records falsified
to indicate compliance.
* Refusing to correct serious flight instrument deficiencies, which resulted
in a foreseeable crash and over 100 deaths during a Los Angeles Airport departure.
* Refusing to provide required corrective training to specific pilots who I
reported as having dangerous piloting habits. In one instance, due to the same
piloting deficiency that I had reported of a specific pilot, 32 people were cremated
alive at Salt Lake City several months after I made the report. That same pilot
had been denied the corrective training that was required by federal law. FAA
management and the airline had a relationship that played a causative and
permissive role in many air disasters over a 20-year period.
SILENCING FEDERAL INSPECTORS
When I arrived in the Denver office to take over the new assignment, one
of the inspectors who knew of the problems and who was disturbed by them,
but who lacked the courage to fight FAA management, clued me in on the many
problems. I was surprised when he would motion for me to talk in some remote
location of the FAA building, or we would go outside the building, to discuss
the serious problems at the airline and within the FAA.
Listing a few of the many crashes caused or made possible by this combination
of fraud and criminal misconduct at United Airlines, the following shows how
everyone on these flights was subjected to the dangers, and that periodically
some of them paid with their lives. For example:
* UAL Douglas DC-7 ramming a TWA Constellation over the Grand Canyon,
June 30, 1956. This crash caused the formation of the FAA in 1958.
* UAL DC-8 crash into New York City(December 16, 1960),for many years
the world 's worst. The crash was precipitated by extremely poor and dangerous
piloting technique. And this problem was caused by the airline denying to the
crew the legally required training, which was covered up by FAA management.
* UAL Douglas DC-8 crash at Denver (poor knowledge by the entire crew,
July II , 1961 ).This and other UAL crashes were an extension of earlier company
and FAA misconduct.
* UAL Boeing 727 crash Salt Lake City (November II , 1965). This was
caused by poor knowledge and dangerous piloting technique by the entire crew.
This consisted of a dangerous approach technique that I had observed on an earlier flight check of that same captain. I also reported that certain check pilots at United
Airlines had a similar problem. I had repeatedly reported that the flight engineer
training program was the worst that I had ever seen and that the competency
checks of the engineers was a sham. In that tragedy the flight engineer failed
to shut off the fuel valves and fuel booster pumps, allowing fuel to be pumped
out of the aircraft through broken fuel lines. (This same problem exists today
as many aircraft, including the huge Boeing 74 7-400, do not have flight engineers.)
The final nail-in-the-coffin for the cremated passengers was the deliberate refusal
of airline management to provide the mandatory emergency evacuation training,
resulting in the crew poorly performing evacuation of the passengers. United
Airlines falsified important records to cover up for these safety violations. This
was a criminal act that resulted in many deaths.
* UAL Boeing 737 crash into Chicago due to poor piloting performance,
continuing to show the consequences of UAL and FAA management misconduct
existing behind 20 years of fatal crashes.
* UAL Douglas DC-8 crash near Salt Lake City due to poor piloting
performance, compounded by the alcohol-impaired flight engineer.
* UAL Boeing 727 crash into the Pacific near Santa Monica, caused by several
factors: known poor engineer training and competency; illegal dispatch of the
aircraft with one generator inoperative and a second generator malfunctioning;
absence of backup-powered flight instruments, a known dangerous condition
which I had earlier reported.
* UAL Douglas DC-8 crash into Portland as all four engines ran out of fuel
due to poor knowledge by the flight crew of the aircraft systems.
* UAL Douglas DC-8 crash out of Detroit due to poor piloting technique.
* UAL Boeing 737 crash into Chicago due to poor piloting technique.
* UAL Boeing 727 crash into Lake Michigan due to known altitude awareness
problem that I had repeatedly identified, tried to correct. I was ordered by FAA
management to disregard this problem that had already resulted in several major
air disasters and near-crashes.
* Many other crashes and incidents.
Typical of the toll in human misery arising from FAA misconduct was the
refusal to correct the cargo door problem on the DC-10 that caused the loss of
nearly 400 persons, and other crashes with similar misconduct. what was revealed
in 20 years of fatal crashes
SENDING A HATCHET
MAN TO SILENCE ME
FAA management used various tactics to stop my reporting and attempted
corrective actions that were required by federal law. But instead of halting my
reports, the retaliation caused me to increase my inspection and reporting of
the tragedy-riddled misconduct. I had tried to work within the system, making
office reports, and filing reports with the regional office, making high-level
regional management aware of the serious problems, to no avail.
Showing that this was not a local FAA culture problem, Washington sent
a replacement manager to take over the Denver district office, and he spent a
major part of his work function seeking to halt my reporting and corrective
activities by a pattern of harassment, threats, and job actions.
AN FAA INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR
As the crashes continued to occur from the same basic problems, and pressure
increased to silence me, I exercised an internal procedure to force a hearing upon
the FAA during which I acted as a form of special prosecutor producing testimony
and evidence supporting my charges of FAA corruption related to a series of
specific air disasters, including of course the air safety and criminal violations
of the airline in question.
FAA management engaged in perjury, subornation of perjury, fraud, using
legal arguments to deny the existence of the safety and criminal violations that
were already established in the FAA records. Many more people would experience
the horror preceding their deaths in subsequent crashes caused by or allowed
to occur by these corrupt practices.
This hearing lasted over four months, and produced over 4000 pages of hearing
transcript and documents. During the hearing I was opposed by the FAA legal
staff, high level management, and an attorney who was on the FAA administrator's
staff. During this hearing I discovered still other documents, including an
inspection report that I did not even know existed that provided more evidence
of misconduct relating to the New York City and other crashes.
MORE CRASHES AND MORE
DEATHS DURING THE HEARING
During the hearing several other air disasters occurred in my area of
responsibility, making it even more obvious how the public pays for the corruption
at the airline and within the FAA that I was exposing.
Long before the hearing had started, I had talked by telephone and sent letters
to high-level officials in the National Transportation Safety Board (called the
CAB Bureau of Aviation Safety at that time), detailing the air safety and criminal
violations, associating them with prior air disasters, and warned of still more
crashes that could be expected.
Under law, the NTSB is required to investigate any air safety problems brought
to their attention. But here we had much more than air safety oversight; we had
criminal misconduct that could be directly linked to specific air disasters, and
to expose this would expose what would probably be the world's worst aviation
scandal.
NTSB COMPLICITY
I reminded the NTSB of the obvious, that if they did not immediately conduct
an investigation, that the problems would undoubtedly bring about more of the
same air disasters. They did nothing. Then. as the FAA engaged in a concentrated effort to cover up for the serious problems during the hearing, engaging in obvious
perjury, subornation of perjury, fraud, legal chicanery, I again contacted high-level
NTSB officials in Washington, advising them of what was being done, and of
the probable consequences in continuing crashes.
DEJA VU AGAIN AND AGAIN
During the four-month hearing and hearing cover up several more crashes
occurred, due to the same basic problems that I had reported, and which were
associated with prior air disasters. The NTSB had to then rush to the accident
scenes to investigate the crashes caused by the serious safety problems and criminal violations that I had brought to their attention earlier, and as other inspectors
had done.
To protect their own contributing role in these crashes the final NTSB accident
report prepared by the politically-appointed Board members had to omit the
serious misconduct that I had brought to their attention. Under federal law, this
constitutes a false report, and fraudulently misrepresents the report's conclusion.
The NTSB had to report the direct causes of the crashes, but omitted the
misconduct that made the direct causes possible, or caused the direct causes to
occur.
COVER-UPS BY EVERY
CHECK AND BALANCE
As the misconduct, coverups, and crashes continued, I sought imaginative
ways to circumvent the high level government blocks. I had gone to various
divisions of the U.S. Department of Justice with my complaints, including the
FBI, various U.S. attorneys, and the Department of Justice in Washington. I
encountered a block, a coverup, obstruction of justice, wherever I went. I sought
to circumvent the Justice Department coverup by appearing before a federal
grand jury in Denver, where I quickly discovered the power of the U.S. attorney.
As the Wall Street Journal frequently writes, the grand jury would indict a ham
sandwich if requested by the U.S. attorney. Likewise, most grand juries would
not act on their own to render an indictment if the U.S. attorney did not want
an indictment to be handed down.
Whenever it was appropriate I would notify the print and broadcast media
of my charges when a major air disaster was front page news. Even though the
crash occurred in my area of federal responsibilities, and [had federal authority
to make these determinations, not a single media source would receive my
statements and evidence. Over the years I found this coverup by the media to
be standard operating procedure.
EXHAUSTING JUDICIAL REMEDIES
Under a federal criminal statute 2 a federal judge is required by federal law
to receive evidence of a federal crime from any person. It is also a felony if
any person who knows of a federal crime does not promptly report it to a federal
judge or other federal tribunal. Since people in control of the U.S. Department
of Justice refused to receive my evidence and were themselves implicated through
cover-ups and obstruction of justice, I exercised this right, and this responsibility,under Title 18 USC Section 4.
2 Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 (misprision of felony). "Whoever, having knowledge of the actual
commission of a felony cognizable by a coun of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as
possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United
States, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. "
I filed the first action 3 in the U.S. District Court at San Francisco, seeking
to report the corruption within the Federal Aviation Administration. The federal
district judge sympathized with my position, but in accordance with the opposing
brief filed by the Department of Justice, dismissed my action. I then appealed
it, and in argument before the Ninth Circuit court of appeals in San Francisco,
the three-judge panel argued that this is a matter for Congress and not the courts.
I argued otherwise, saying that it was a responsibility of the courts to receive
my evidence, under the federal criminal statute, and also that a federal judge
had the responsibility 4 to order a federal agency to halt unlawful actions. Again
the action was dismissed, and again, the dismissals caused the deeply entrenched
problems to continue, as well as the crashes and the deaths.
3 Stich v. United States, er at. , 554 F.2d 1070 (9th Cir.) (table), cerr. denied. 434 U.S. 920 ( 1977)(addressed hard-core air safety misconduct, violations of federal air safety laws, threats against government inspectors not to report safety violations and misconduct):
4 Title 28 U.S. C. § 1361. Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty. The district cou ns shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an office r o r employee of the United States or any agency thereof 10 perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.
I filed similar actions following the PSA San Diego crash, which was at that
time the world's worst air disaster, taking the title away from the New York
City crash that occurred on the program for which I had air safety responsibilities.
In that crash the NTSB had covered up for the all-night partying and drinking
of the airline crew whose actions early the next morning resulted in a horrible
tragedy into a residential area of San Diego. Following a pattern, the NTSB
covered up for the underlying cause of the crash and I petitioned the NTSB to
receive my evidence relating to that tragedy. They refused to receive the evidence.
I then filed an action with the district court at San Francisco* seeking to have
the court order the NTSB to receive my evidence and that of a witness who could
testify to the partying.
Shortly after I filed the action an assistant U.S. attorney called and stated
to me over the phone that he was supporting my position and was recommending
to his superiors in Washington that this be done. That relatively new AUSA
with the Justice Department was unaware of the prior Justice Department
involvement and coverups, not realizing that supporting my position could expose
the air safety and Justice Department scandal that already existed . That AUSA
then filed a motion to have my action dismissed, which the judge (and former
Justice Department attorney) did.
I also filed a friend-of-the-court brief associated with litigation against Douglas
for a scandalous DC-10 crash, which required that I obtain the approval of the
various lead attorneys involved in the litigation. I received this approval , but
again the district judge dismissed my attempt to provide evidence.
GOING DIRECT TO THE PEOPLE
Still harboring the fantasy that the public wanted to hear about the corruption
that was threatening them when they flew, I decided to circumvent the government
and media blocks that I encountered by publishing the first edition of Unfriendly
Skies, which went to print in 1978, immediately after the PSA San Diego crash.
Publishing the book, and appearing as guest and air safety expert on radio and television shows, the truth would come out.
There is much more to this period of corruption, and I strongly recommend that anyone really interested in how government operates, how government
corruption continues year after year, and how this corruption results in tragedies,
read the latest edition of Unfriendly Skies.s Between Unfriendly Skies and
Defrauding America, the reader will learn more about government corruption,
as seen by an insider, than found virtually anywhere else.
Were it not for the people responsible for the pattern of air safety and criminal
acts and related air disasters I would never have been motivated to become a
crusader or activist against corrupt government, and I would never have
discovered the endemic corruption detailed and documented within these pages.
In a perverse way, these producers of tragedies can be "thanked" for making
possible the discovery of even worse corruption and the tragic consequences
suffered by many Americans.
The examples given in this book are highlights of events, and only a small
part of what I and other federal investigators, and other insiders, discovered.
The criminal activities and the harm suffered by Americans and America, have
and are occurring in part because of the breakdown in checks and balances.
the refusal of Americans to become informed, and massive indifference that
became so very clear to me during the past 30 years. These first few pages will
detail and document the corruption within the government of the United States
that led to the deaths of many people, and still affects to a lesser extent safety
in air travel..
28s
2
ATTACKING THE WHISTLEBLOWER
My escalating exposure actions threatened many powerful people. I had
published the 1978 and 1980 printings of Unfriendly Skies.I appeared
as guest on hundreds of radio and television shows and had also filed
federal lawsuits against the FAA and NTSB, all of which were focusing attention
on serious corruption in government. The people and groups threatened by my
exposure activities included officials within the Federal Aviation Administration;
the National Transportation Safety Board; U.S. Department of Transportation:
members of Congress; federal judges, including the Justices of the U.S. Supreme
Court, and management at United Airlines. Those who could do the greatest
harm to me, however, were Justice Department officials and federal judges, and
their influence with state law firms and judges. I had yet to recognize other areas
of government corruption far worse than I had already discovered.
The importance of describing what was done to me is that it shows the control
over state agencies by federal officials and the type of actions taken. misusing
government offices, to obstruct justice, all of which makes possible the infliction of great harm upon the American people.
INADVERTENTlY GIVING THE CLUE
I inadvertently gave my adversaries the clue as to how to stop my exposure
activities. During several radio and television appearances the hosts asked me,
"Aren't you afraid of what they might do to you?" The question implied physical
harm, but I sidestepped it, saying, "As long as they can't get to my money, I'm
OK." I felt there was no way that my adversaries could get the assets which funded
my exposure activities.
At the beginning of the 1980s, the market value of my real estate properties
was close to ten million dollars, and my net worth was over six million dollars.
Foolishly, instead of just enjoying life and these assets, I continued my air safety
activist activities trying to expose the government corruption that continued to
play a role in air tragedies. I was the only person with the evidence and the
willingness to fight the powerful thugs involved in this scandal, and perhaps foolishly, felt I had an obligation as a citizen.
START OF A BIZARRE
JUDICIAL PROCEEDING
It took money to continue the activist activities, and I had already inadvertently
given the clue to my adversaries that my exposure activities were funded by
my assets. A bizarre scheme commenced in late 1982 via a sham lawsuit that
had been structured to immediately separate me from my assets, and eventually
to take them away from me. Those who carried out the scheme had to have
assurances, either specifically or from knowledge of widespread corruption in
the judicial branch, that every check and balance in the California and federal
courts would protect the scheme and the perpetrators. However, though it was
costly for me, it provided me the opportunity to discover a pattern of corruption
against America far beyond what I could have imagined at that time. Even though
I already knew of very serious corruption in the three branches of government,
I felt there was a limit.
To commence and continue the sham lawsuit required repeated violations
of blocks of California and federal statutory and case law, as well as constitutional
protections. The sham action and the voiding of all state and federal remedies
and protections caused loss of the assets that funded my exposure activities.
There are two basic ways to judicially strip a person of his or her assets almost
immediately. One is through probate proceedings, but this requires that the person
be dead. The other way is through divorce proceedings, seizing the assets on
the basis that they are community property. I had been divorced since 1966,
and five divorce judgments established that fact. 6 In California where I resided,
the 1966 judgment had been entered as a local judgment in the Superior Court,
Contra Costa County. Under California and federal law, the judgments were
final and conclusive of our divorced status and property rights. The California
and 1966 judgments were entered as local judgments in the courts of Nevada,
Oklahoma, and Texas. In addition, my former wife, residing in Texas, had been
declaring herself divorced for the past two decades, buying and selling real estate
as a divorced woman. She applied for higher Social Security payments on the
basis of the 1966 divorce judgment, which the federal government recognized
when they raised her Social Security benefits. It was safe to say that I was legally
divorced.
THE BIZARRE JUDICIAL SCHEME
In December 1982, several months after the Supreme Court Justices dismissed
my action against the NTSB, I was served with a dissolution of marriage action, even though I had been legally divorced for the past two decades. The San
Francisco law firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross filed the action in Superior
Court, Solano County, Fairfield, California. The lawsuit alleged that I was
married to Friedman's Texas client and that she wanted a termination of that
marriage (which in Texas she had declared was terminated in 1966). Using the pretense of the marital relationship, the Friedman law firm claimed that my
assets were community property. On that sham basis, the law firm filed dozens
of lis pendens upon them, which halted important segments of my real estate
activities, inflicting serious financial harm upon me.
The Friedman law firm claimed that all of my properties were community
property, even though they had been acquired years after the 1964 Colorado
separation and after the 1966 divorce, which adjudicated all property rights.
Under law, these properties were not community. Even if there had been a
marriage California judges lacked jurisdiction over separate property in a marriage
dissolution action under clearly stated statutes. Building upon the sham divorce
proceeding, the Friedman law firm filed lis pendens on all of my properties,
preventing necessary such necessary activities as refinancing loans coming due
on various properties.
MASSIVE AND UNPRECEDENTED
VIOLATIONS OF LAW
The lawsuit was filed under the California Family Law Act, which grant
state judges limited jurisdiction. It clearly prohibits attacks upon prior divorce judgments Orders rendered by a judge who lacks personal or subject matter
jurisdiction are void, and also subject thejudgeto lawsuits under the Civil Rights
Act. 1° For the next eight years, commencing in 1982, California judges rendered
orders lacking jurisdiction for the cause of action filed against me, on the basis
of California law. Absence of jurisdiction also arose from other sources.
CALIFORNIA LAW
PROHIBITED THE LAWSUIT
Technically, jurisdiction could have been obtained to file a lawsuit under
declaratory judgment statutes to determine whether the parties were married
or not. 11 But to have done that would have prevented immediate seizure of my
assets which can be done in a real divorce action on the basis of community
property.
In addition, California statutory law prohibits collateral attacks upon any
prior divorce judgment in any cause of action. The statutes and related case
law require mandatory recognition of each of the prior divorce judgments.
California Supreme Court decisions prohibited attacks upon prior divorce
judgments.
Attorneys for the Friedman law firm argued that all five divorce judgments were void on the basis that I did not intend to reside forever in the jurisdiction
that rendered the 1966 divorce judgment. But that argument had been declared
unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1940s. The Friedman attorneys
spent months arguing what my mental thoughts must have been about permanently residing in the 1966 court's jurisdiction. A person getting a divorce does not
have to pledge that he or she will reside forever in that jurisdiction. This is the
lie that I had to fight during six years of litigation in California courts. Further,
the statute of limitations prohibited an attack upon prior judgments three years
after they are rendered. Any one of these dozens of state protections barred
the action, in addition to the absence of jurisdiction under California law.
VIOLATING FEDERAL
AND CALIFORNIA LAW
In addition to California law barring the sham action, overriding federal
law barred the action. Federal statutory and case law, and constitutional
safeguards. protect people who change their state of residence from having their
prior divorce judgments and personal and property rights voided by a judge
in some other state court. The constitution provides that a person cannot suffer
loss of previously adjudicated or acquired personal and property rights when
the person changes residence to another state. Federally protected rights barred
the refusal to recognize residence as a basis for exercising personal jurisdiction
in a divorce action. This was settled almost fifty years ago by the U.S. Supreme
Court when California judges refused to recognize Nevada divorce judgments
obtained after six weeks residence.
Federal law, especially the constitutional and statutory Full Faith and Credit
doctrine, requires state judges to recognize the judicial acts of another state.
This requirement applied to the prior divorce judgments and the property
settlement. California statutes also have a full faith and credit mandatory
recognition requirement. These protections required that the California judges
recognize the California, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Texas divorce judgments.
The sham lawsuit also violated fundamental constitutional rights and protections.
"REMARRYING" LONG-DIVORCED PERSONS
The California judges held that they had the right to remarry people who
had been divorced for decades; to invalidate subsequent marriages; to void prior
property settlements adjudicated in other states and jurisdictions. and to order
property acquired years after a prior divorce to be community property with
the prior spouse. Three judges in the California Court of Appeal upheld these
decisions, as did the judges in the California Supreme Court. Their published
decision established the right of California judges to void divorce judgments
and property rights adjudicated decades earlier, contrary to federal and state
statutory and constitutional protections. The person initiating these attacks need
not even reside in California, as long as a former spouse resides in the state.
Using the published decision as precedence, California judges can order the
former spouse to pay your attorney fees for a new "divorce," and pay support
at the same time. At the present time, until that published decision is overturned,
the same scenario that happened to me can happen to anyone who has been
previously divorced.
SUSPENDING APPELLATE REMEDIES
The appellate court remedy for a judge's refusal to dismiss an action following
a motion to quash is to file a petition for writ of mandamus with the California
Court of Appeal . Then, if denied, file a petition for hearing with the California
Supreme Court. If the lower court lacks jurisdiction, the upper court must
grant the petition. Even though the lower court judges clearly lacked jurisdiction,
the California court of appeal judges denied the petition for relief. The California
Supreme Court justices also upheld the violations of state and federal laws and
constitutional protections.
The remedy under California law to vacate an order to pay money is by appeal.
and I appealed. The appeal was heard by Court of Appeal judges, Donald King,
Harry Low, and Zerne Haning, all appointed by former California governor
Jerry Brown. Media articles reported the judges paid bribe money for the judicial
appointment. These judges rendered a published decision upholding the
violations of state and federal law. That decision was published and is case law
in the State of California today. I appealed that decision to the California Supreme
Court and, when the violations were approved by California's highest court,I appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The issues were of utmost importance to thousands of people who were subjected to the same constitutional outrages
inflicted upon me. None provided any relief.
This was a major constitutional set-back, something like returning to the
fifties when blacks were required to sit in the back of buses in the South. But
it was upheld by the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme
Court. The decision was unconstitutional. As long as that decision stands, others
risk the same fate I suffered. This little-noticed decision affects everyone who
exercises a constitutionally protected right to change residence to California,
making them fair game for losing their personal and property rights; making
their wives adulteresses; making their children bastards.
RETALIATION FOR
EXERCISING LEGAL DEFENSES
The Court of Appeal judges held in their published decision that it was
frivolous for me to exercise my remedies under California law (motion to quash,
petition for writ, and appeal). The decision held that I should have willingly
submitted to the jurisdiction of the California judges (who under law had no
jurisdiction under the Family Law Act to attack prior divorce judgments); that
I should have agreed to be remarried; that I should have agreed to undergo another
divorce proceeding, and have the properties and assets I acquired during two
decades of divorced status divided with Friedman's Texas client and the Friedman
law firm (on the basis of the contingency agreement between Friedman and
their client).
Based upon this published decision and the holding that it was frivolous for
me to object, the three appellate judges ordered me to pay $50,000 attorney
fees and financial sanctions. This order was shortly followed by another order
that I pay $170,000 attorney fees to the Friedman law firm.
"They can't do that!"
Many attorneys stated to me that the California judges couldn't do what they
were doing. I agreed, but they were doing it anyhow. I had not yet recognized
that the California lawsuit was a scheme involving federal and state personnel
to strip me of the assets I relied upon to fund my exposure activities.
DOZENS OF ILLEGAL LIS PENDENS
The illegally filed lis pendens halted my real estate activities. Valuable property
was lost, including my mountain-top home that had over a quarter-million-dollar
equity in it. Everything I worked for was being lost. Even on the eve of losing
valuable properties due to mortgage foreclosures caused by the lis pendens.
the Friedman firm and their attorneys refused to allow the existing loans to be
refinanced.
Initially, I had legal counsel, but they were as incompetent as the attorney
I hired for the Denver FAA safety grievance hearing. I had to terminate them
and proceed in pro se status, representing myself. None of my legal counsel argued current California law. They argued fifty-year-old case law from the
days of segregated bussing, toilets, and eating establishments, that had been
superseded for decades. None of them knew federal law, which under the Federal
Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution takes precedence over state
law. To get the law argued, I had to file my own briefs. But in pro per status,
due process almost always goes out the window as state and federal judges side
with their attorney cohorts.
While under constant judicial attack and suffering severe personal and financial
losses due to the sham action, my doctor advised that I must immediately undergo
open-heart surgery, which I did, receiving six coronary bypasses (April 1985).
Before I left for surgery, I notified the California Court of Appeal judges, King,
Low, and Haning, of the hospitalization, and requested they delay their decision
on the appeal of the May 10, 1983, order until after I got out of intensive care.
Otherwise, I would not have time to request a rehearing from the California
Supreme Court judges for the expected unfavorable decision.
I was barely out of intensive care and had just arrived home, when the Court
of Appeal judges rendered their decision. Several attorney friends described
the decision as the closest thing to a poison-pen letter that they had ever seen.
I rushed to prepare a petition for hearing to the California Supreme Court. But
the Supreme Court judges had protected the judicial civil right violations since
1983. There wasn't much hope, as the judicial Ponzi scheme protected the
renegade judges.
The published decision fabricated facts out of whole cloth. It refused to address
any of the California or federal laws that I raised in defense. Contrary to
California and federal statutes and constitutional protections, the decision held
that California judges could void prior divorce judgments of any party moving
to California; could remarry the parties who had been long ago divorced; could
order a person (who may have subsequently remarried) to financially pay attorneys
on both sides during the "divorce" action; could seize properties and businesses
that had been acquired years after the prior divorce, and to convey half of it
to a former spouse (even if remarried). They held they had the power to destroy,
in this bizarre fashion, the personal lives and possessions of innocent people.
The published decision eulogized the Friedman law firm who filed the action
that was prohibited by law. The decision eulogized my ex-wife who openly
committed fraud and perjury by simultaneously declaring herself married to
me in the California action while declaring herself divorced from me in her
resident state of Texas. The published decision approved the rendering of orders
inflicting great harm upon people without having jurisdiction under California
law to even conduct hearings once the prior divorce judgments were presented
to them.
Despite the absence of jurisdiction, the absence of any marriage. the absence
of any contact between the former spouses for many years, despite the blocks
of state and federal law barring the action, California judges continued to render
orders inflicting great financial and personal harm upon me.
California appellate judges (Low, King, Haning) used all types of schemes
to block my appeal remedies. They refused to receive my appeal briefs; they
misstated the facts and the law; they ordered me to pay huge fines for filing appeals and oppositions; they threatened to impose additional fines if I exercised
any of the judicial remedies available under law. In one instance they ordered
me to pay over $250,000 in fines to the Friedman law firm for having filed appeals
and oppositions, which were rights guaranteed by the statutes and constitution
of the state of California.
BENCH WARRANT FOR MY ARREST
The judicial outrages didn't stop. When I Jacked access to my funds to pay
the S 170,000 to the Friedman law firm that was ordered by Judge William Jensen,
Peterson sentenced me to jail. (California governor George Deukmejian later
promoted Peterson to the appellate courts.)
Despite the unconstitutionality of the cause of action, its prohibition under
California statutory law, despite the absence of jurisdiction under the Family
Law Act, California judges repeatedly protected and rewarded the Friedman Law firm. The California judges blocked every attempt to defend against the
bizarre action. Something was radically wrong. To support the violations of
blocks of law, the California judges blocked every procedural defense.
RETALIATION FOR
EXERCISING FEDERAL REMEDIES
Another scheme was concocted to put me in jail. Jensen ordered me to appear
in court on May 9, 1986, a date that he knew I was calendared to be in federal
court at Sacramento. That action was a Civil Rights action I filed against Jensen
on the basis of violating my rights under state and federal laws and causing me
harm. Jensen retaliated against me for having exercised these rights by ordering
me to appear in court to show why I should not be held in contempt for failure
to pay the judgments, which he knew I couldn't pay.
I filed papers in the Solano County court notifying Jensen that I physically
could not appear on that date (which he already knew). I also stated my inability
to pay the money orders since the Friedman law firm, with his help, had tied
up all my funds with the lis pendens upon my properties and assets. I again
reminded him of the absence of jurisdiction and the wholesale numbers of
California and federal laws that barred the attack upon the five prior judgments.
l also advised Jensen that an attorney would appear for me at that hearing (which
met the requirements of California law).
Despite all this, Jensen held me in contempt of court for not being present,
and issued a bench warrant for my arrest. Since I resided in Nevada, this bench
warrant kept me from appearing in California for the next year and a half. Seeking
relief from the bench warrant, I submitted petitions for relief to the California
Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court. The Ponzi-like scheme of
judge-protecting-judge continued, and relief was denied.
SHAM DIVORCE JUDGMENT
Without my knowledge, the Friedman law firm and California Judge Dennis
Bunting conducted a hearing on July 28, 1988, to terminate the non-existing
marriage and order the taking of my properties. During the hearing Judge Bunting
rendered a judgment that described the cause of action as a dissolution of marriage
action (even though there hadn't been a marriage for over twenty years, depriving the judge of jurisdiction under the Family Law Act proceeding). Having
"established" that Friedman's Texas client was married to me, Bunting then
rendered an order holding that all my assets were community properties. All
of my properties met the legal definition of separate properties since they were
acquired years after the 1964 separation and 1966 divorce.
The same order required me to pay $2500 monthly spousal support for the
remainder of my life (contradicting the five existing divorce judgments showing
there were no spousal support obligations).
There were now six divorce judgments. Five showed me divorced since 1966;
showed all properties were separate; and held that neither party had any spousal
support rights or obligations. Then we had the sixth judgment rendered twenty-two
years later by California judges lacking jurisdiction under California law; lacking
jurisdiction under federal law; lacking jurisdiction over properties legally
classified as separate; violating dozens of California and federal statutes,
constitutional protections, and other laws; in a cause of action barred by forty-five
years of U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
Federal statutes provide that a person can obtain a declaratory judgment from
a federal judge, declaring his personal and property rights and the validity of
the five prior divorce judgments, when these rights are under attack. There is
no other place to go but into federal court when judgments from another state
are attacked by a state judge. But to render a decision would unravel the scheme
concocted against me, expose the civil and constitutional violations, and the
criminal conspiracy under which they were perpetrated . To this day, my
constitutional and statutory rights to have a ruling holding these judgments and
the related personal and property rights declared valid have been unlawfully
and unconstitutionally refused to me by at least a dozen federal judges.
I filed a notice of appeal with the California Court of Appeal in San Francisco,
which was heard by the same justices that had aided and abetted these violations
of law for the past seven years: Justices Donald King, Harry Low, and Zerne
Haning. This three-judge panel rendered a decision (July 22, 1990) approving
the judgment. They approved the judgment that under law was a void judgment
and which violated numerous federal protections, such as the Civil Rights Acr.
Worse, they placed a frivolous label on my appeal, ordered me to pay $65,000
sanctions to the Friedman law firm for filing the appeal , and ordered me to pay
$20,000 sanctions to the State of California! I then filed an appeal with the
California Supreme Court, which also had protected the massive judicial violations
since 1983. The entire court approved these judicial violations.
It was several years before I recognized what was behind the sham California
action. Once the judicial scheme started rendering the unlawful orders, it became
necessary for each succeeding judge to enlarge on the violations so as to protect
the prior acts and protect those involved in the scheme. This daisy-chain scenario
then occurred, time and time again.
CHAPTER THREE
COMPLICITY OF
FEDERAL JUDGES
Any one of the many violations of California and federal law inflicted
upon me in the sham California action invoked mandatory federal court
jurisdiction. For six years California judges and the Friedman Law firm
had been violating important civil and constitutional rights, which were escalating.
Federal statutory and case law and the Constitution guaranteed declaratory
judgment and injunctive relief, and financial damages, for any citizen undergoing
these violations.
In their positions of trust, federal judges are paid and have the mandatory
duty to provide federal court access and relief.In addition to the statutory right
to federal court access and relief the First Amendment to the Constitution provides additional safeguards so that no one suffers as I suffered.
When a divorced person exercises his or her constitutional right to change
residence, his or her previously adjudicated personal and property rights in a
divorce must be recognized by judges in another state. That person cannot be
subjected to another divorce proceeding twenty or thirty years later, invalidating
subsequent marriages, as was done to me in the sham California action. In the
bizarre action taken against me, one of the remedies arose under the Declaratory
Judgment Act and statutes. These remedies required a federal judge to declare
the validity of each of the five prior divorce judgments and the validity of my
divorced status and property rights.
The refusal by California judges to recognize any of the prior judgments
entered in five different states (including California) and refusal to recognize property rights established in those divorce judgments and acquired as a separated
and divorced person, invokes federal remedies. In my case, to declare these
rights, the U.S. District Judge must first apply federal law that requires
recognition of the judgments and then secondarily apply state law if it conforms
to federal law. In my case, any one of over a dozen state and federal doctrines
of law, constitutional rights, and statutes required the California judges to
recognize the rights established in the five judgments. They refused to do so,
and even imposed financial sanctions upon me for exercising procedural defense
remedies against the grotesque violations of long-established protections.
Because California judges inflicted great financial and personal harm upon
me through their violations of my civil and constitutional rights, there were
additional federal statutes insuring that I have access to federal court. These remedies also provided jurisdiction to obtain financial damages against the state
judges and the Friedman law firm. This relief arises under the Civil Rights Act,
among other statutes, which is embodied in Title 42 Section 1983.When two or more people act w do a certain thing, it is called a conspiracy.
It was obvious that the various attorneys in the Friedman, Sloan and Ross law
firm and the California judges were acting together to inflict great harm upon
me through repeated violations of state and federal law. This conspiracy violated
another section of the Civil Rights Act, Title 42 U.S. C. § 1985.
If any person knows that your civil rights are being violated and they have
the power to prevent or aid in the prevention of these violations, and they don't
do so, other federal statutes provide federal court jurisdiction and relief. This
cause of action arises under Title 42 U.S.C. Section 198631 and Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1343
Under certain conditions this conspiracy creates still another federal cause
of action under the RICO statutes (Racketeer Influenced and Corruption
Organization Act).
When federal officials violate a person's civil rights, they are said to be acting
under color of federal law. They can be sued. These federal personnel include
federal judges, federal trustees, or other federal employees. The authority is
the Bivens doctrine, which is federal case law applying the Civil Rights Act
to violations by federal personnel.
MANDATORY DUTY TO PROVIDE RELIEF
I filed the first federal action (January 10, 1984) in the United States District
Court in the Eastern District of CaLifornia at Sacramento. Js Although I had years
of legal experience working with attorneys and in filing federal actions against
the FAA and NTSB, and could have filed this lawsuit in pro se, I hired
Sacramento attorney James Reed to file the action. He had experience with civil
rights as a law school teacher at McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento.
The lawsuit sought (a) a declaratory judgment to declare my divorced status
and property rights, as established in the five divorce judgments and under federal
and state law; (b) injunctive relief to halt the orders rendered by the California
judges who were acting without jurisdiction under California Jaw and violating
blocks of state and federal law, and (c) financial damages.
The federal lawsuit raised issues that had been settled in the 1940s by the
U.S. Supreme Court. It sought to declare my constitutional right to change
residence without being remarried to a person from whom I was divorced decades
earlier. It sought to protect the considerable real estate that I had acquired since
the 1966 divorce and which was the primary target of the sham action. The lawsuit sought financial damages against the California judges and the Friedman law
firm. In the same year, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the right to sue state
judges who violate state or federal law or who act without jurisdiction. The
coun clerk assigned the lawsuit to Judge Raul Ramirez.
THE START OF THE FEDERAL
DUE PROCESS GRIDLOCK
The Friedman law firm and California Judge Dwight Ely filed a motion to
dismiss the federal declaratory judgment and civil rights action on the grounds
that the California action was a divorce action and, therefore, the federal courts
must abstain. The mere fact that I was subject to a divorce action when federal
law established that I had been divorced for almost two decades constituted
violations of federally-protected rights. These violations invoked mandatory
federal court jurisdiction. Many federal laws, and over two dozen California
statutes and Rules of Court had been violated, constituting major federal causes
of action. Further, even if! had been legally married, federal court jurisdiction
over civil rights violations does not cease when federally protected rights are
violated.
REPETITION OF THE FRIVOLOUS TACTIC
The standard tactic used by the California judges when I exercised my legal
procedural remedies was to place a frivolous label on it and call me a vexatious
litigant. The frivolous labels were then used to order me to pay huge financial
sanctions to the Friedman law firm, who initiated the civil right violations.
U.S. District Judge Raul Ramirez unlawfully dismissed my action, refusing
to render a declaratory judgment addressing the validity of the five divorce
judgments, or my personal and property rights. Ramirez sought to support his
order of dismissal on the argument that the California action was a domestic
relations action for which federal courts should abstain. That was a misstatement
of the law and facts. First, the Civil Rights Act protections apply to all actions
regardless of the label placed upon the suit. Second, I was exercising my rights
under the Declaratory Judgment Act to have a federal court declare as valid
the prior divorce judgments and the personal and property rights stated in them.
Federal law, in addition to state law, required that these judgments and these
rights be recognized. Third, the divorce label was a farce as I had been legally
divorced for the past two decades. It would not have been much more bizarre
to have placed a probate label on the action, ignoring the fact that I was still
alive.
Ramirez compounded his refusal to act by ordering me to pay the Friedman
law firm $10,000 for having sought declaratory and injunctive relief remedies.
If an attorney files a frivolous action, it is the attorney who is ordered to pay,
and not the client. But it was I who was the target of the judicial attacks, and
this became obvious over the years. Ramirez violated still another federal statute.
It is a federal crime to inflict harm upon anyone for having exercised rights and protections under the laws and Constitution of the United States.
DEFINITION OF A FRIVOLOUS ACTION
The United States Supreme Court and other federal decisions defined the
term frivolous as any complaint, appeal, or any other motion from which there
is not an arguable point. The U.S. Supreme Court held that they are not frivolous
if "any of the legal points [are] arguable on their merits ... " Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519, 521-522 (1972). Obviously, my federal complaint exercising
the right to have my personal and property status declared under federal and
state law was not frivolous, and the validity of five divorce judgments, was
not frivolous. Nor was it frivolous to seek injunctive relief against the repeated
violations of state and federal law by California judges acting without jurisdiction
under California law. This judicial charade was repeated time and time again,
as the pack of renegade federal judges engaged in a Ponzi-like scheme protecting
the scheme and the perpetrators.
PROTECTION AGAINST
WRONGFUL DISMISSAL
Federal law prohibits dismissing an action if the complaint states a single
federal cause of action. The law requires that the allegations stated in the
complaint be recognized as true for the purpose of determining whether a federal
cause of action is stated. If any single federal cause of action is alleged, the
case cannot be dismissed and the District judge must exercise his duty to provide
a federal court forum.
These and many other protections to which all Americans are entitled were
repeatedly violated during a ten-year-period by a daisy chain of federal judges,
including Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.
SUSPENSION OF APPEAL REMEDIES
In response to Ramirez's dismissal, I filed a timely notice of appeal with
the U.S. Court of Appeals at San Francisco, the same appellate court that had
wrongfully dismissed my lawsuits against the FAA and NTSB in 1974 and 1980.
These unlawful dismissals continued the practices that played key roles in
subsequent air disasters. In those earlier actions I exercised the mandatory
responsibilities under federal criminal statutes to report safety and criminal
violations to a federal court. By their refusal to receive my testimony and evidence
these same federal judges blocked the reporting of serious crimes and became
co-conspirators in the criminal acts I sought to expose.
Federal appellate law requires the Court of Appeals to vacate the order of
dismissal and the frivolous holding, if the complaint alleges at least one federal
cause of action for which federal courts can grant rei ief. And the allegations
stated in the complaint far exceeded that test. For the purpose of this test, all allegations must be accepted as true.40
The Court of Appeals judges denied my appeal. upholding the violations
by the U.S. District Court Judge and upholding the pattern of civil and
constitutional violations in the state court. They also upheld the S 10,000 financial
sanctions ordered by Judge Ramirez 41 in retaliation for exercising defenses
guaranteed under the Constitution and laws of the United States. I then sought
relief by filing petitions for writ of certiorari with the Justices of the United
States Supreme Court. Even they had been implicated in the judicial coverup
associated with the air safety corruption. They also protected the scheme.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed
my federal actions seeking relief. Their acts approved the unlawful denial of
a federal court forum, the violations of federal law, the unlawful dismissal of
the action, and the obvious conspiracy to commit these acts. These higher federal
courts gave the California judges and the Friedman law firm carte blanche
approval to escalate their attacks upon me, which then occurred. The I is pendens
that were placed upon all of my properties prevented the normal replacement
of mortgages as they came due, and I lost valuable properties. My personal
life and my business were in shambles.
California Judge j. Clinton Peterson 42 sentenced me to jail for five days in
1987, charging me with contempt of court when I failed to pay a money judgment
to the Friedman law firm. That same judge had tied up all my assets. leaving
me without funds to pay any judgment, valid or not.
REPEATEDLY SEEKING RELIEF
As the California judges rendered additional orders, inflicting greater harm
upon me, which were new federal causes of action. I filed additional federal
lawsuits seeking to halt the escalating harm arising from the unlawful and
unconstitutional acts. In every instance, federal judges protected the hard-core
civil and constitutional violations occurring in the sham California action, while
simultaneously protecting those committing the offenses.41 I filed numerous
petitions with the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. making the Justices aware
of the pattern of judicially inflicted civil and constitutiOnal violations.
SHAM OATHS
All federal judges, including the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, take
an oath to uphold the laws and Constitution of the United States. The oath is
as follows:
I, [name of judge], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign
and domestic, chat I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose
40 " In our v1ew, a deciSion to g1ve less than full mdependent de novo rev1ew to the state law
determmauons of the distrtct couns would be an abd1cauon of our appellate respon~ibliny. Every pany IS
emitled to a full, considered, and impanial review of the dec1sum of the trial coun. ·· Marrero[McLmn. 739
F.2d I 395 (9th C1r I 983).
41 Ram1rez left the federal bench m 1992 and went w1th the Sacrdmento law tim1 of Orne!...
I Ie rnngton & Sutcliffe. In 1996 he left to becom~ a pnvate Judge 111 mediatton servtces. callmg h1mself
Ram1rez Arbitratton & Mediatton Servic~s
42 Supe n orCoun located at Fairfield. Califomta. He wa\ laterpmmoted to a Counot Appeal Judge
43 Federal Judges Marilyn Petal. Samuel Contt. Charles Lcg.ge.
COMPLICITY OF FEDERAL JUDGES
of evasion, and that / will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the
office on which I am about to emer. So help me God.
Many judges would be impeached if the law was applied as written.
RECOGNIZING THE
JUDICIAL CONSPIRACY
I had been too close to the trees to see the forest. I recognized the pattern
of judicial misconduct but had not associated it with a scheme to silence my
reporting of the government corruption. Gradually, it became clear. The
California lawsuit was engineered by powerful interests in the federal branches
of government, using the Friedman law firm as a front and obtaining the
cooperation of California judges in the conspiracy. It was apparently never
anticipated, when the scheme was hatched, that I would exercise federal remedies
And when I did, federal judges had to protect the scheme and the attorneys and
judges carrying it out. (At a later date, I discovered that the Friedman law firm
was either a CIA proprietary or a CIA cutout.)
Once I recognized this relationship, I identified It in my federal briefs and
simultaneously identified the criminal activities 1 first discovered as a federal
investigator. I filed a federal action combining the causes of action relating to
the ongoing California action, and simultaneously demanded that I be allowed
to present testimony and evidence relating to the criminal activities. This acuon,
iik.d in the U.S. District Court at Sacramento,44 was assigned to Judge Milton
Schwartz.
"Mr. Stich, these allegations
are very serious."
During the first hearing before Judge Milton Schwartz on May 9, 1986, the
judge admitted the gravity of the allegations. "Mr. Stich,., he stated, "these
allegations are very serious. If you wish, I will continue the hearing and give
you time to hire legal counsel." But no legal counsel would touch the case; it
was too sensitive. Besides, the cost to pursue the case against powerful federal
personnel, who have the unlimited federal funds of the U.S. Treasury behind
them, would run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. And m) adversaries
would be the judges and Justice Department attorneys who control access to
justice. Also, as I would later learn, virtually no attorney would sacrifice his
legal career by exposing the misconduct in the courts and the Justice Department
RAPID CHANGES IN POSITION
Within a month after Judge Schwartz admitted the gravity of the allegations
stated in the complaint, the Friedman law firm and the California JUdges filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint. Despite the multiple federal causes of actions
alleged in the complaint, despite the gravity of the criminal acts which Schwanz
admitted during the previous hearing, Schwartz ordered my lawsUit dismissed
and ordered me to pay financial sanctions for having exercised these federal
remedies.
The dismissal openly violated federal law which bars dismissing lawsuits
which state a federal cause of action. Mine stated many causes of actions. Further,
I was reporting federal crimes to a federal court for which federal criminal statutes
required Schwartz to receive details and evidence.
Judge Schwartz continued the judicial tactics of the California and federal
judges, ordering me to pay financial sanctions to the Friedman law firm for
having exercised procedural remedies necessary to halt the harm I was suffering
and the violations of statutory and constitutional protections.
The total financial sanctions that federal judges ordered me to pay the Friedman
law firm now exceeded $150,000. It is a federal violation to inflict harm upon
anyone in retaliation for having exercised rights and protections under the laws
and Constitution of the United States. (Title 18 USC Section 241.)
Schwartz compounded these unlawful actions by rendering an unlawful and
unconstitutional order forever barring me access to the federal court and forever
voiding for me the protections in federal statutes. Neither he, nor any other
judge, had authority to suspend the protections under our form of government.
THE LEGAL BASIS FOR
AN INJUNCTIVE ORDER
The basis for rendering injunctive orders is to protect a party during litigation
who is suffering great and irreparable harm. But the injunctive order rendered
by Judge Schwartz protected the parties committing the harm and deprived me,
the victim, of protection intended by federal statutes.
I filed a timely notice of appeal of the dismissal and the injunctive order with
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco. Instead of vacating the
dismissal and injunctive order, the judges in the Court of Appeals upheld the
right of a federal judge to block the reporting of federal crimes, upheld the
suspension of constitutional and statutory protections, and upheld the civil rights
violations inflicted upon me. Again, I sought relief from the Justices of the
Supreme Court via an emergency petition and petition for writ of certiorari.
And again they upheld the unconstitutional acts by the judges over whom they
had supervisory responsibilities.
In response to these new attacks, I filed federal actions against the judges
of the California Supreme Court and the California Court of Appeal. The basis
for this filing was that they aided and abetted the civil rights violations committed
against me. Concurrently, I again sought to have my rights declared in the five
judgments which were being violated, as well as demanding that my testimony
be received concerning the criminal activities I discovered . The action was
assigned to U.S. District Judge Marilyn Patel,46 who promptly dismissed it sua
sponre, without any hearing (March 5, 1987), violating still other federal laws.
She ordered me to pay financial sanctions and then rendered an order barring
me for life from federal court access. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the
judges were voiding, for me, the rights and protections under our form of
government, and making possible the continued judicial attacks upon my freedoms
and possessions. This obviously unlawful and unconstitutiOnal judicial order
was necessary to protect the state and federal judges who were cooperating in
the scheme to block my reporting of government corruption that included federal
judges and Justice Department attorneys. Patel ordered the court clerk to refuse
any filing that I submitted, which violated additional protections in federal statutes and constitutional law.
After every dismissal by a federal judge (and the Supreme Court justices)
the Friedman law firm and the California judges increased the frequency and
severity of their violations against me, inflicting immense personal and property
harm. I had to do something, and under our form of government I had rights
that these renegade judges could not legally void.
PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE
BREAKDOWN OF RIGHTS
These acts were prima facie evidence of the destruction of constitutional
rights and the criminalizing of the federal courts by renegade judges. The
involvement of many federal judges, including the entire Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals and the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, revealed the enormity
of the judicial corruption and its deep entrenchment in the United States.
If any single person can suffer these outrages, or lose their constitutional
rights and protections, all U.S. Citizens can suffer the same. If any federal judge
can inflict such great harm upon one individual, in clear violation of law, they
are capable of inflicting the harm upon anyone else targeted by either that judge
or the system of which he is a member.
These corrupt judicial acts are only part of what they did to me, and reflect
what can happen to anyone else, regardless of the protections under the laws
and Constitution of the United States.
The judicial and Justice Department coverups and retaliation made possible
the continuation of the corruption that I sought to expose. This coverup played
a role in decades of air disasters made possible by continuation of air safety
problems, including the corrupt culture inside the FAA and NTSB. The coverups,
obstruction of justice, and retaliation also made possible crimes against the
American people that have yet to be revealed in these pages.
next
CHAPTER ll RETALIATION
notes and source
No comments:
Post a Comment